another check. >> does not sound familiar. >> i know what you are talking about. >> thank you, everybody, that does it for me. exploit factor analysis of congresswoman bachmann. saying there is a division between conservatives and they bring in rush limbaugh to make the point. we'll tell you what's going on. and you will be interested to hear it. >> i don't put people on food stamps. people become eligible for food stamps. >> factor investigation. the government is now spending a record amount of money on food stamps. and some of that money is being stolen. wait until you hear this. >> i think this speaks of

the episcopal church and not obama or the religious right. i would give the president the pass on this. >> charles krauthammer not all that angry about a washington pastor injecting race into the easter services attended by president obama. we'll talk to charles about that. >> bill: caution. you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. ♪ >> bill: hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. the left-wing media, rush lame because, and me. that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. the two people, the liberal media fear most are radio guy rush limbaugh and me, your humble correspondent. that's because we both have powerful daily forums where we can explain what we believe is harmful to the country. recently on the net a number of left-wing media folks have tried to drum up a phony feud, citing

divisions within the so-called conservative community. like they point to me and limbaugh as the primary example. the reportage is simply dishonest. the loons are taking my commentary out of context as they always do. i mean both mr. limbaugh and i literally say millions of words on the year each year. it's simple to distort them. especially for readers who have no blanking clue who never watch or listen to us. the liberal media overarch on me is that i change my beliefs based upon public whim. a foolish lie easily disproved. in fact, in fact, in a positive quirk of fate, i have a new book called "keep it pithy" coming out in a couple of weeks. that book contains my major commentaries over a 17-year period. and, believe me, believe me, i'm going to use that book to hammer these liars all day long. the feud deal ramped up

after i criticized congresswoman michele bachmann for mocking president obama's lavish white house lifestyle. what mrs. bachmann failed to point out but i did was that president bush the younger spent more on living arrangements than president obama has. now, there are also some inaccuracies in congresswoman's analysis of the situation. so i corrected the record. that is called honest analysis. and if the idealogues don't like it, tough. congresswoman bachmann does have a decent point that mr. obama is asked for shared sacrifice in hard economic times but doesn't seem to be sacrificing himself. but she lost that point with bad information. then there is the gay marriage issue. zealots picked up on my statement that opponents, opponents of gay marriage must do more than thump the bible. if they want to win the civil debate. that's absolutely true. the reason the polls have turned around is that proponents of gay marriage

have succeeded in making it a civil rights issue. marriage equality. while opponents have not put out a compelling policy argument against gay nuptials. again, that is correct and honest analysis. but my personal opinion on gay marriage hasn't changed. i have always said that heterosexual marriage is a society seattle stabilizer and the issue should be decided state by state. the will of the people should not be disenfranchised by agenda driven judges. also, i have always favored civil unions because equal protection is sack sack-o-sacrosanct. my aunts never married. the kennedy girls up in yonkers new york. they lived together their whole lives. they were sisters. i would like to have them had a civil union where they could define what they wanted to do with their assets and hospital visitation. i think that should be available.

that was 10 years ago you pinheads out there who are writing about my gay marriage deal. 10 years ago. now, on immigration, the situation is the same. my position has been consistent. protect the border with the national guard, but have compassion on individuals who are good people. >> i have always said if i were a poor mexican, i would try to cross the border and earn money here and send it back to my family. i don't blame the illegal aliens. i blame the federal governments of both mexico and the united states of america. >> bill: 8 years ago. it is long past time for americans to scorn dishonest media to reject fanatical charlatans masquerading as honest sources of information. i don't mind being criticized for my machines. but gutter snipes who libel and slander those with whom they disagree are the lowest rung. there are legions of them.

that's the memo. now for the top story tonight, reaction, joining us from west palm beach, florida, laura ingraham. all right. now, you do a radio talk show that's kind of conservative. and monica crowley does the same show coming up behind you. what do you think about all of this? >> well, number one, i would say, bill, there is a feud. i mean, i think, you know, you and limbaugh, both of you are friends of mine. so i -- in this position where i think when you said they have to do more than bible thump, i don't think you really needed to say that right? i think you could say. >> bill: number one. >> let me finish. >> bill: no, no. we are going to get very specific because i told you. >> i will get specific if you let me talk i will get specific. can i finish my sentence. >> bill: no because you made two statements that are a r. fallacious and i will defend them. i have never talked to limbaugh. i never said anything about limbaugh. >> i'm talking about the feud about the issue.

the issue. >> bill: no feud on my part. i don't care what he says. he can say whatever he finish. >> bill: no, no. no and thump the bible. >> okay. >> bill: thump the bible. i will give you your time. you just keep it. >> i adore you. i'm just trying to make pint. >> bill: i will let you make the point. >> i haven't said anything yet. go ahead. >> bill: the thump the bible deal was purely a policy play. go. >> i don't think you need to use the word "thump the bible." i think this debate about marriage, you have to do more than thump the bible. okay. bill, i think this debate about marriage is a relatively recent one. supreme court justices both appointed by republicans and democrats made that comment during the prop 8 hearings last week, right? the people for traditional marriage, this is new to them. i think you are right, they haven't been very good at pr. they haven't been very good sometimes at making their argument. you are right, i believe, that a lot of them do have a very deeply held

religious belief about what traditional marriage is you are a roman catholic. i know i am too, right? we believe people should be treated with respect. i certainly believe people should be treated with tolerance. there should be a meaningful debate on this. i also think you are correct and been very consistent over the years about what judges should and should not do. judges should not legislate from the bench. and have you been extremely consistent with that. now, i think the loves to see conservatives fighting about this or that issue. you are totally right. they are exploiting this. >> bill: now you had your say, that was a good two minutes. all right. number one, there is is no feud because i don't participate in the feud, all right? i'm not fighting with anybody. all i'm doing -- >> -- i'm talking about conservatives hashing it out. >> bill: i'm pointing out the unfair attacks coming from both left and the right. okay? i made a very, very honest point and you just ceded it was the correct point. if you are going to stand up for heterosexual

marriage and exclude gay marriage. if you are going to do that you have got to do it outside the bible. you can't cite the bible because you will lose if you do it. >> bill, just in response to that, when you say you can't cite the bible, well, again, i think that's disrespectful to people who really try to live their lives according to the bible. >> bill: not disrespectful in their private life they can. we are talking a policy deal here. don't you understand the difference between private beliefs and public policy? >> i guess i'm not very well educated i don't understand, bill, i'm making -- bill, i'm making -- i'm trying to make a point here. >> bill: there was no insult at all to any christian belief system in that comment. >> i don't think that's what you intended to do. >> bill: there was no insult. it wasn't a matter of intention. it was sieged by people. >> bill, i am trying to make a point to you that if people take that the wrong way if they jump on that

point. awful i can say is i say things all the time. i talk for three hours a day. i'm sure i can go back and say oh i might not have said it that way. >> bill: lauer, i'm disappointed in you tonight because you are still, after all of this too time not delineating. you are still saying ininsulted christians who believe in the bible. did i not. i was talking purely about policy. >> why did you use the word thump? >> bill: that's the way you get it across. there are bible thumpers and all they do is say i object to gay marriage because god objects to it. >> i'm actually not doing that. >> gay friends, gay family members as i do. i don't simply do that. >> bill: i didn't say you did it. >> this really isn't my issue. and not your issue. you said that before it's not really your issue. you don't focus on it. >> bill: you are criticizing my that setly for using the word "thump

the bible." which was an accurate description. >> i don't think it helped. >> bill: i'm not in business to help. i'm in business to get things done. if you want to win the debate. >> do you think it was helpful to say that? >> bill: helpful? it was accurate and honest. you will lose the debate if that's all you do. you can't win it. >> i think that for some people it's not about winning the debate. it's about living the life that they want to live for themselves, their communities and their families. >> bill: that's fine. >> i'm not saying that you are out there trying to insult people. all i'm saying is that some people took offense, obviously, and maybe it's just, you know, a good thing to talk about it keep talk about it inspects not a bad thing. >> bill: crowley and colmes are going to talk about it i'm not mad at you. i'm frustrated because you of all of the radio -- i'm going to say this to lauer, don't listen. >> okay. >> bill: all the conservative radio talk show host you have the most common sense of all of them. >> okay now they are all going to hate me.

>> bill: into -- you bought into this garbage. >> i didn't buy into it you asked about your comment if you have got to do more than bible thumping, bill. all i'm say something give it time to percolate. people will come up with better arguments. you are right it has to be more broad-based. >> bill: i don't have time to view any of that i'm viewing honest commentary. the polls have turned it around because one side has a stronger civil argument than the other. that's a truth. >> i think that's right. you and rush should do a tour called bigger better. do a tour and. >> bill: i'm not going to mention anything about anything because i'm not feuding. next on the rundown, crowley and colmes on whether an american can be too conservative or too liberal. later, stossel on those lucky americans who get our tax money to help their business. how are they selected? we're coming right back.

>> bill: continuing now with our lead story, is there a division within the medical precincts and what do do about the dishonest liberal media here now monica crowley and alan colmes. you do a show on 00 radio. how do you see all of this business? >> i do think there is a significant rift are on the right between establishments and modern conservatives. and you see this battle playing out in primary process around the country. you also see it playing out in these public spats between key figures like sarah palin and karl rove who just had it out a couple of weeks ago. the real battle is, you know, there is a sense that the establishment still believes in top down and sort of elitist mentality that we know best. with the rise of the tea party you have got grass roots conservatives who say no, no, no. we now believe in bottom up. we believe in the people. we need some fresh blood. we want to purge the establishment folks who helped create this whole mess. >> bill: i don't disagree with that that's a political component but there is a social component here. colmes?

as i said i don't really follow any ideology at all. the only reason i knew about this is my staff forwarded me left wing article articles that tried to exploit left wing feud. >> i love feuds. >> bill: how can there be a feud. i don't even even participate. >> you and rush are different flavors of i wouldn't call you a conservative. you are more traditionalist. you have more flexibility. i will call you more of a populist. rush limbaugh seems to be more ideological. liberals will go and look for that divide and jump right in and say this, that, and the other. >> bill: for what reason. >> just like conservatives love to see their left fight, we love -- everybody loves a food fight on the other side of the equation. >> bill: that's not why. they want to diminish the power of the two guys as i said in the talking points memo who have the most influence against them. and the divide and conquer is what they are using. it's a sleazy little trick. and when i saw the article that said i had flip flopped on gay marriage, total lie and flip flopped

on immigration bigger lie than the gay marriage. >> you were talking about unions before 10 years ago. gay marriage and civil unions are two very different things. >> bill: yeah. and i have never said that gay marriage should be the law of the land. i have said each state should decide it like the gun control. >> did you say years ago that chaos would ensue if gay marriage ever took place. >> bill: no, no. no. that's totally out of context. what i said is if you are going to legal lie gay marriage you have to legalize plural marriage and every other marriage under equal protection which you will by the way. don't take me out of context. >> it's never going to get to that. >> bill: yeah it will. there is big difference between your so what and we won't get there we will get there. >> you are right. those are two different things. >> the comment that gave rise to this feud that doesn't even exist that the left just manufactured and made up to get some press for itself was the bible thumper which you just talked to laura ingraham, about right? >> bill: wait, wait, wait. one second there were conservatives genuinely angry about the bible

thumping comment. that's fine. if you want to be angry at me. people angry at me about a lot of stuff. what i said was not inaccurate or insulting on any level. it was descriptive. go. >> yes. and i agree with you on that. i want to make this point. the week before with our segment why were talking about gay marriage. there was no controversy. and you made the same comment except without the bible thumper phrase. you were saying, look, the secular -- if you are going to oppose gay marriage in largely secular nations then you have to offer up some compelling secular arguments. >> bill: that's the gist of it if you want to make the argument your constitutional and societal argument has to be stronger than the other side. what do you think about these guys exploiting the bible thumper comment? what do you think about that? >> any time if you are on a secular program like this. any time you invoke god, jesus, the bible it's going to spark controversy. >> bill: you are dodging my question. >> no, i'm not. >> bill: i said what do you think about the guys

exploiting it and you know who is doing it and you didn't answer. >> no. i said you used a phrase that of course they were going to take it one way. >> bill: of course they were? honest people wouldn't have what do you think. >> same thing happened to barack obama people cling this-to-their bibles and their guns. that was exploited by the right. >> bill: you didn't listen. >> that's a judgment call. >> no it isn't. that was condescending. >> the word thump something condescending. >> bill: thumping condescending. >> people interpret that way. >> bill: condescending. >> some people took it that way. >> bill: you wrap it it up. >> sometimes a comment, just a comment. and sometimes a comment. >> sometimes -- >> bill: if you had watched that segment and i know this by the mail, okay, you knew exactly what i was saying and why i was saying that that's it. >> i agree. all right. directly ahead. factor investigation. an enormous amount of food stamp fraud going on even as president obama urges america to apply for

supplemental food assistance. right back with

>> bill: factor investigation tonight. food stamps. right now the federal government is spending a record $75 billion a year on supplemental nutrition assistance food stamps. enrollment in that program now stands at 48 million americans, another record. that's a 50% increase. 50%. since president obama has taken office. in addition it's estimated that $750 million a year is stolen from the food stamp program. joining us now from washington chris edwards from the cato institute. you think it's a much higher theft ratio and we will get to that in a moment. but, first, why do you think so many americans are getting food stamps? is it purely because ever the dicey economy? >> it's partly the economy, but both presidents bush

and then obama have hugely expanded eligibility and benefit levels for the food stamp program. to give you one example, president bush changed the law and lo allowed immigrants to get food stamps. immigrants barred from food stamps. one must be on this in the poverty hasears the number gone up 10 million but the number on food stamps have gone up 20 million. so you can see it's not just a poverty problem. it's this expansion in eligibility under the last few administrations that is the real problem here. >> bill: the government expands because they want to be humane though. you say it's a problem. isn't it a humane thing to do to get people who don't have a lot of money the ability to buy better food. >> old fashioned welfare program. the whole point of the welfare reform in '96 was not give these unconditional benefits to people who don't work. food stamps has been a massive expansion and old fashioned welfare where people get the benefits for

not working. as you touched on, there is a huge amount of fraud and waste in this program as well. we were supposed to have reformed the stuff and got it out allow washington. both republicans and democrats. >> now, the department of agriculture estimates 750 million stolen food stamps. you say about 3 billion. all right. it's almost impossible to calibrate it but what's the scam? how do people steal food stamps. >> about 50 million people on it 200,000 retail stores in america where people can redeem their food stamps. the basic scam is people go in with their electronic food stamp card. the corrupt retailer swipes it per se 200 bucks. gives 100 bucks cash to the individual who is cheating the system. he goes out and buys alcohol or drugs or whatever he wants. so the retailer you see pockets the $200 from the government.

and now that these cards are electronic, these scams can be really widespread and they're really widespread. i don't believe the government fraud numbers. the government says only about 1% fraud. i don't believe that most of these federal subsidies programs is 10% fraud. is in the billions and billions of dollars. >> bill: if that's the case. if people can swipe a card showing a certain amount that's been paid, and then not -- that doesn't go for food that goes for drugs or alcohol, pocket -- obviously that's so simple you can do that transaction in, what, 35 seconds? >> right. >> bill: a bunch of guys figured this out and that's what they are doing. very troubling i think. there is nobody really watching any of this, right? >> that's right. the basic problem here is the feds pay the 80 billion for the food stamp program. the feds administer it. the states have no incentive to crack down on the fraud. they have every incentive to maximize the amount of people on the program and to not worry about the

fraud because the feds are paying for it. this is why ronald reagan wanted to get food stamps, give it back to state governments where they can administer it better than the federal government of washington. >> bill: nobody keeping track of it now. that's for sure. states don't have the man power to do it? >> absolutely. >> bill: charles krauthammer kind of sticking up for president obama after his race injected into his easter sermon. will force gay marriage on america? is it legal in analy [ anouncer ] ihop in time square to compare new griddle-melts to your usual breakfast sandwich. a lot more flavor. [ anouncer ] ihop's new griddle melts... made fresh and hot! hand crafted just for you. it's like a sexy sandwich. [ anouncer ] compare new griddle melts yourself. just $4. it's like a sexy sandwich. it's an epic breakfast sandwich.

>> bill: stossel matter segment tonight. chosen ones how the federal government selects people and regulates business concerns they do it by using tax money or denying tax money to others. stossel has been investigating this so-called government scam for years. >> wouldn't you like to drive one of these would work? your government won't let you. it protects the chosen ones. in other countries this gets approved. the chosen ones help keep things like this away from you. >> bill: wow, and that's the quad ski, stossel is that what that is. >> that's amphibious recreational vehicle. you can't run it in the road in the united states so you can in europe because they air bag. of course in the water, every time you hit a wave the air bag would go off. >> bill: so this is a vehicle that is manufactured by, whom?

>> by a british company. >> bill: yeah it's for fun, right? it's a fun vehicle? >> this one is for fun. but they have larger ones which could be really useful as rescue vehicles. >> bill: but the united states government will not allow it to be sold here? >> well, this recreational vehicle finally now it got permission. took four years in america. took four to eight weeks in europe. because the big three have all these rules that say. >> bill: ford, g.m. and chrysler, the government protects them because they employ so many people? >> and not overtly. it's just crony capitalism. because. >> bill: you believe they do it on purpose? >> well, they get cozy with the big three and they say oh, yeah, you have got to have these rules for safety. >> bill: so they find a way to keep the products off the market? >> right. they don't want to keep good things -- they want to make sure it's safe. >> bill: i don't believe that i think they want to pander to the big companies that employ a lot of people. >> sugar. we pay all of these money, tax money goes to this

sugar people in the united states. why? because the fan j l jewel family and other rich families are good at lobbying. agriculture spends a lot the in lobbying. sugar spends half of it. not as much subsidy as banned from import. >> bill: we can't get cuban sugar because they have a terrible government. other parts of the world we can't import sugar? >> because it would hurt the sugar businesses. those other countries subsidize sugar. >> bill: car companies come in from all over the place japan and germany. >> sugar got better barriers. >> bill: one family or two families have succeeded in banning sugar coming in here which would drive the cost of sugar down. >> right. which is just crazy. >> bill: the government rationalizes saying, what? >> other countries protect their industry. we're going to lose this industry. i say let it go. >> bill: need a free

marketplace. >> taxpayers want to give us a gift of subsidized sugar? thank you very much. >> bill: stossel has always been hectoring congress over their perks, right? give me some of those. >> well, the worst where they used to kite checks those are gone. senate has a barber shop that loses a third of a million dollars a year. >> bill: 330,000 a year the barber shop loses? how come. >> because they offer cheap haircuts and got guys who have about been there a lot pays a lot. >> have you ever seen the hair on the senators. >> i don't know where they're getting the money's worth. >> bill: they are not. >> you are still paying for those haircuts. >> i'm paying for mitch mcconnell's hair cut? is that what you are telling me? harry reid's hair. >> i assume. manicures and massages there, too. >> bill: you get manicures and massages. >> the house privatized the thing it makes money now. senate didn't can't do that. >> bill: stossel, everybody, always causing trouble. >> stossel's book "no they

can't" out in paper book today. big best seller. judges overturning the will of the people. is that freedom? legal is next. with the spark miles card from capital one, bjorn earns unlimited rewas for his small business take theseags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjors small busiss earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve limited reward here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? [ crows ] now where's the snooze button?

>> bill: thanks for staying with us i'm bill o'reilly in the legal segment tonight overturning the will of the people. that's what the supreme court is trying to find out now after california voted down gay marriage. will the nine justices rule that vote invalid and force gay marriage on the folks of the golden state. here now kimberly guilfoyle and lis wiehl. our research shows there has been v. been a number of times that people have voted in state for a certain law. let's begin in washington state, a liberal bastion where the folks said they didn't want forced busing for integration purposes. they did not want it. voted it down.

>> right. but the judges did, what? >> the supreme court of 1982 said that referendum that you passed in washington say nothing mandatory busing is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. equal protection. so they took that out. now mandatory busing came back into seattle in the seattle area and with the a-4 decision. this was a very close decision. >> bill: that stands to this day, correct? >> sure. >> bill: nobody has brought it back under a different guise or anything like that. was the only time that forced busing has been challenged at the supreme court level. >> seattle. i was leaving in seattle at the time. i remember this case it was a really big case in seattle that case stands so, yes. >> bill: anybody else that would challenge it would have to go through that. clear example of the supreme court ruling what the people wanted was not constitutional. >> con a constitutional basis. equal protection. exactly. >> all right. now we have one in colorado

where the folks there 15 years ago. >> roamer vs. evans, 1996. the court declared unconstitutional but the initiative. >> bill: let me set it up. you are way ahead of us. 17 years ago. homosexuals will not be giving preferential treatment in the state of colorado. the states said yes, that's right. we all want to be treated the same. >> the court said that was unconstitutional. the 6-3 decision by justice kennedy saying that essentially violating equal protection. there was a lack of a rational basis or safe basis to support this law. discriminatory against gays, lesbians and by sexuals. >> is it because they singled out the gays for this that they voted on just gays. >> sexual orientation, exactly. the supreme court said you can't do that to one group. >> this is like landlords. things like that where gays in the state were being discriminated against. >> it imposes a disability

against gay's, lesbians and by sexuals. >> that's not what the folks voted on and correct me if i am wrong, ladies, like you always do. the coloradoens voted on we don't want to give personal treatment to gays. >> exactly. >> bill: they turned it around saying if you allow that law to stand then you will be discriminating. doesn't make any sense to me. >> dissenting opinion by scalia describing bill billing no preferential treatment for one group and the supreme court says oh you can't single out one group. >> reverse argument. >> one group. then you could say no preferential treatment for native americans and then go down. >> interesting here. kennedy was -- wrote the decision. >> he is -- and he will be swing vote. >> let's get to prop 8. >> california twice has said no to gay marriage. folks out there don't want it for many reasons. many different reasons. but now it seems to meet supreme court doesn't want to overturn that vote.

that's what it seems to me. >> i don't think so. if you listen to the argument that they're going to overturn the vote. >> i don't think they want to overturn the vote. because they know this time they are in really deep water. >> they can still do it. >> here is how. listen to the justices last week. they were asking about standing. should we have even take this case. should this case have a right to be here. it would go back to the state court which have already upheld or said that proposition 8 is out. >> bill: take it back to the state court. >> exactly. >> bill: state courts will overturn the will of the people. >> goes back -- california supreme court said justice von walker it should be upheld. they have a constitutional right to marriage. so that's where this is going to come down. >> only apply to california though if that happens. >> bill: it's nullifying the will of the people in california that's what it is. >> if they wanted to overturn it they could use that roamer equal protection.

>> bill: by the way lis wiehl's matter of trust doing great. check it out in your bookstore along with stossel's book. krauthammer on deck. did he not criticize president obama's pastor for easter sunday sermon that included some race business.

>> bill: back of the book segment tonight. fallout from the east err sunday sermon given by pastor lus leon in washington. he injected race into the sermon as president obama looked on from the pew the some conservatives in washington want to return to the bad old days of segregation or something. joining us is charles krauthammer. i don't want to put words in your mouth. i was down in caribbean and i kind of got the gist that you weren't that upset about this.

as some people were. >> is that true? >> i'm afraid heads will have to roll in your research department. i was pretty rough on the pastor. i thought what he did was disgraceful. i think i called it libel. and it was actually quite an echo of what ted kennedy said when robert bork, remember when he was nominated within minutes kennedy was on the floor of the senate saying robert bork's america is in america where blacks can't be served at the counter. where women have back room abortions. and the pastor at this church essentially said the same thing. it's a racist country. racist, sexist, blames it on the religious right and it was a libel. it was a slander of the first order. the question was was obama somehow complicit in this because he didn't object before or afterwards my

answer is when the president goes to church he is not required to react to whatever the pastor says. this is different from sitting in a pew in jeremiah right's church 20 years. calling him your mentor. having him marry you and baptize your children. in that case, of course, you are associated. but. >> bill: let me play devil's advocate. >> easter sunday he has got to respond in the answer i think is no. >> bill: let me play devil's advocate here. i share your outrage about the inappropriateness of the minister's remarks on easter sunday you disagree with you. if i were the president of the united states i would put out a statement through jay carney. told our white house guy i didn't ask the president about it all knew was true he didn't ask him about it but should have. the way i feel and didn't really think it was the best way to phrase it on east err sunday, signed president barack obama.

what would have been wrong with that? >> there wouldn't have been anything wrong with that. >> bill: i would. >> that's probably why you are not the president. >> bill: probably other reasons too. i'm a show and segment or two short. when the president goes to church i don't think he is required to make a statement. >> bill: he ♪ required. look, he is supposed to represent the whole country. that's what barack obama doesn't seem to get. >> look, this is a church that is across the street from the white house he didn't choose it because of the pastor. he chose it because every president since madison has gone there. >> bill: that's no excuse. he got to be old. this guy talked to james madison this guy? how old is this man. >> all the presidents in between. including chester arthur. >> >> bill: one of my favorites new york port

authority guy. you have been criticized by some on the right when you don't hold the torch of what ideological purity of whatever they want. that's what this is all about. on the left those weasels come in and try to exploit that fissure, you see it i'm interested to hear what you have to say about it? >> you may not get attacked on the right, when for example, i declined to attack obama because he didn't respond to what a pastor said in a sermon on easter. >> bill: i didn't attack you, i just disagreed politely and with good humor. >> that was an attack at humor. maybe i should have had a sign on the bottom saying irony. of course you get attacked from left and right all the time. if you are in the business and big boy that's going to happen. you have to ignore it because otherwise you will spend your time in response. major issues of our time where you express yourself if you and say the body of conservatives disagree, i think you are obligated to

explain yourself with you but, beyond that. >> i find it an interesting exercise on what the strategy is to divide and conquer on the left and right is ideological purity. were you offended when i said you have got to do more to thump the bible to win the gay marriage debate? did that offend you, charles krauthammer? >> i think you were right to say it. and the reason is this. it's a serious argument. i have complete respect for anybody who says i'm against abortion or against homosexual marriage because i believe in the bible. that, i respect completely. and i don't argue. however, if you want to persuade people who are not of your faith. you have to go beyond that or you will not succeed. and since we are not a majority country where everybody has the same interpretation of the bible, i think you have to make a case that goes beyond it it's not that i have no respect for it. or that some liberals, i

believe that if you cite scripture somehow you are written out of argument and you are somehow in a way that is against the constitution introducing religion into politics, there is no prohibition about opposing policy x for whatever reason. it could be religious or secular. >> absolutely. you have every right. if you want to expand your constituenciy. >> bill: that's right you want to win the argument, the majority. >> you have to go outside the narrow bounds of your own religion. that's always been true and that's what happens in a pluralistic society. >> bill: all right. chals. i got some of those words were a little large but i got most of it and as always -- >> -- i try to keep them short on your show. >> bill: i know you do. >> i know you are just a simple man. >> bill: i am a simple man. >> that's what you tell me. >> bill: if i can think of a synonym for thump i would have been a lot better off. factor tip of the day. what you should do for your kids or grand kids if you can afford it. the tip 60 seconds away.

:

>> something you can give your kids and grandkids that willou help them very much in a moment. another super deal on bill o'reilly.com. we will give w you free a copy of the boulder show if you buy any of my best-selling books on the website. obviously this is madness for us, so take full advantage. mothers and fathers day coming up. the books and d.v.d. make great gifts. jim walsh who touched on an important issue, the jewish and muslim communities, powerful groups that go after anyone perceived to be disrespectful to their religion. christians have nothing like that, and we should. dennis landrieu. mr. o'reilly, your good friday special was very

important. an important day for cranes all over the world -- important day for christians all over the world. my staff did a good job putting on the good friday show. bill, you are a slippery slope with your book killing jesus. the bible already covered that. i. fully expect to get criticized by folks like you, i'm ready for it. martin and i are writing a history book that incorporates many different sources. i'm not competing with the bible. i'm just telling the reader what happene id and why. l.j. adams. the president of the united states gets an annual salary of $400,000 and a bureaucrat in california deserves more. bill, wear need you to lead the way and demand politicians stop lying to us. doing the best i can on that, pat. it's not just the politicians. the press generally misleading americans big

time. david greasehold, thailand. piers morgan called you a self-proclaimed king of cable. i'd love to see you bury him. no problem. i'm not b much on kings. the ratings speak for themselves. an fd try to buy four tickets to the show here in july and sold out fast. tomorrow after the miller segment i'll announce another show in spokane, get on it fast. an announcement to a fourth grade class in sherman oaks, california. thanks for reading lincoln's last days. i read your book reports. appreciate it. a fine time to help out your kids and grandkids. my father got two weeks

vacation a year. hard to believe when you look back on it. since we didn't have a lot of money we traveled for one week. i say traveled but what we did was go to a lake in vermont or new hampshire. it was w fun. i got to appreciate a little bit o of new england. it wasn't exactly a life-altering experience. now what i do is take the urchins sometimes against their will to exotic places where they can learn things. last week we went to saint kits in the eastern caribbean. alexander hamilton born there, left at nine years old and the rest is history. the culture of the island is an interesting combination of british, french and african. we had a wonderful time. the folks on the island friendly. the factor is huge on saint kitts, everybody watches. this summer i'll be taking the urchins to ireland. if you can afford t it, get those kids in gear.

take them somewhere fascinating. o'reillyandfoxnews.com. word of the day: do not be prescient. look it up. look it up. great to be back from vacation. well, kind of great. it's okay. again thanks for watching tonight. i am bill o'reilly. please remember the spin stops here. we are definitely looking out for you. [national anthem playing]

[national anthem playing]